December 1-4, 2019

Dec 01 13:08 Community organizing vs. civics

Dec 02 07:14 Secret impeachment depositions vs. grand jury proceedings
Dec 02 10:54 Speaker Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Democrats vs. President Zelenskiy

Dec 03 00:11 The Dems' invitations & pitchforks
Dec 03 14:17 Dems ignore the people's business
Dec 03 17:30 Schiff's national security double standard exposed

Dec 04 00:42 The unserious Schiff Report
Dec 04 10:52 Chairman Schiff's findings of 'facts'
Dec 04 17:13 Constitution, Jonathan Turley, impeachment hearing stars

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018



Community organizing vs. civics


Bit-by-bit, people are putting a higher priority on teaching old-fashioned civics. About five years ago, "a coalition of prominent leaders assembled by the Arizona-based Joe Foss Institute launched a Civics Education Initiative ." They started with the premise that students shouldn't graduate unless they pass the same test that immigrants must pass when they apply for citizenship.

This movement started after it was discovered that "fewer than half knew that John Roberts is the current chief justice of the United States. More than one-quarter thought Brett Kavanaugh was." When students were asked the term length for U.S. senators and representatives, "fewer than half of college graduates could give the correct numbers."

While this is disturbing information, there's more frightening news lurking on the horizon:

As Education Week has reported , the very idea of schools using the citizenship test elicits a "torrent of criticism from leaders who favor the new, broader conception of civics education." Jessica Marshall, former social studies director for Chicago schools, put it this way: "[The citizenship tests] don't tell us if young people know how to mobilize their communities to get resources or pass laws they care about."

It isn't the job of schools to teach students how to be progressive activists. Back in September, I wrote about Rep. Dean Urdahl's op-ed ( Part I and Part II ). In that op-ed, Rep. Urdahl wrote this:

Next session, the MSBA [Minnesota School Board Association] plans to double down on its campaign against civic education. MSBA officials want to no longer have to offer the civics test. This crosses the line from passivity to enmity regarding civics. Testing conveys a message; we care about what we test. Eliminating the test implies MSBA doesn't think civics is important. In Minnesota, it should not be about the number of tests, but rather, are we testing the right things.

Rep. Urdahl also wrote this:

The failure is measurable. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, the highly respected "Nation's Report Card," reports that 75% of our graduates leave high school not proficient in civics. They are failing. A nationwide poll found that two-thirds of Americans can name an American Idol judge, but only 15% can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. One-third of our graduates can't name a single branch of our government. The Annenberg Study revealed that 37% cannot name one right guaranteed in the First Amendment. There are students who think Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court.

Rep. Urdahl also wrote that MSBA wants school boards, not voters, to have the final say on operating levies:

Over 332 school boards are elected by their communities. These members are trusted and charged with the governance of school property, budget, curriculum, technology, taxes, student achievement and teacher quality - ensuring excellence and equity in all public schools.  Therefore, MSBA asks that you honor and trust the work of these local officials by allowing school boards to renew an existing operating referendum, by reducing the current number of mandates, and provide flexibility to meet the unique needs of their schools and communities.

TRANSLATION: Those pesky citizens shouldn't have a say on their property taxes. We know what's best . That's what progressive arrogance sounds like.

Since the DFL controls the House in 2020, it isn't likely that they'll say no to MSBA. That means we'll need the GOP Senate to stop this unaccountability initiative dead in its tracks. Trusting school boards to do the right thing is like giving matches to an arsonist, then expecting him to not set something on fire. That isn't insanity. It's stupidity.

It's also imperative that we elect a GOP majority in the House and maintain the GOP majority in the Senate in 2020. We can't afford unified DFL state government. We saw what a disaster that was in 2013-14.

These things should be taught until students understand why we adopted this Constitution and why the US is the greatest nation on earth. We should make it illegal to teach political activism in schools. That's the job of political parties and outside groups. Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for that stuff.
[Video no longer available]
In addition to emphasizing teaching civics, it's essential to emphasize teaching history, math and science, too. It's important to de-emphasize the victimology classes, too. Civics classes unite us as a nation. Victimology classes divide us. Let's work to unite, not divide, this great nation.

Posted Sunday, December 1, 2019 1:08 PM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 01-Dec-19 07:14 PM
First - not all immigrants take the citizenship test. Only those who enter the country legally take the test.

Second - without victims, the DFL has no one to vote for them.


Secret impeachment depositions vs. grand jury proceedings


A while ago, Adam Schiff and other Democrats compared his secret impeachment hearings held in a SCIF in the basement of Capitol Hill to grand jury proceedings. That's BS. They're as similar as oil and water.

Most importantly, impeachment hearings involve the leader of the free world. The Democrats' impeachment hearings have taken months, which have distracted President Trump from his important responsibilities. When a grand jury indicts a criminal, the only person getting penalized is the potential criminal. When the president gets impeached, the people get punished as much as the president does. (Does anyone think that China wouldn't have caved by now on a trade deal if not for this impeachment fiasco?)

Next, when witnesses testify before a grand jury, they've actually witnessed something. Over half of the people that the Democrats deposed didn't witness a thing about what the Democrats are impeaching President Trump about. Testifiers like Marie Yovanovitch, George Kent, William Taylor and others didn't listen to the call. None of those testifiers has even met President Trump. Lt. Col. Vindman listened to the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call but hasn't met President Trump. Lt. Col. Vindman raised a concern but that was determined to be insignificant. Later, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the rough transcript was accurate.

Democrats have a very weak case. They're whining that White House staff won't testify. When they had the chance to take them to court to compel testimony, though, they declined to compel testimony through the courts. Democrats have frequently said that the White House exerting various privileges might add more articles of impeachment.

That's why the White House has declined to participate in Wednesday's hearing of the Judiciary Committee:

'This baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness,' wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone, continuing the West Wing's attack on the procedural form of the impeachment proceedings. Cipollone said Nadler provided only "vague" details about the hearing, and that unnamed academics, and not "fact witnesses", would apparently be attending.

"As for the hearing scheduled for December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the president a fair process through additional hearings," Cipollone said. "More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing."

Thus far, Democrats have vetoed each of the Republican witness requests. They've blocked the CIA snitch from testifying because he knows whether Schiff's office sought him out. They won't let Hunter Biden testify because connecting him with Burisma's corruption hurts their case. They won't Joe Biden testify because explaining this away would prove difficult:
[Video no longer available]
Democrats are afraid that good prosecutors like Matt Gaetz and John Ratcliffe will expose Biden's corruption. It's a safe bet that they'd make Biden look like a fool. That's why Democrats can't play this fair. Playing fair wouldn't get the result they've wanted :

To summarize: Many Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from the get-go. Frustrated at their inability to get it done, they jumped on their last, best hope, taking shortcuts to ensure their preferred result and racing to beat the political deadline imposed by their party's presidential contest. Through it all, they have insisted they are acting only with great reluctance and sorrow.

The question now is whether the public will believe it.


Posted Monday, December 2, 2019 7:14 AM

No comments.


Speaker Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Democrats vs. President Zelenskiy


It's time for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler to stop the impeachment nonsense. That's because President Zelenskiy just reiterated that President Trump never tied lethal military aid to investigating Joe and Hunter Biden :

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky insisted that he never discussed a quid pro quo with President Trump tying U.S. military aid to a request for political favors in a newly published interview. Nevertheless, he hit the Trump administration for the delay in that aid and for critical statements about his country.

Shortly after that, President Trump tweeted this:


That's just part of the Democrats' problem. Fred Barnes writes that Democrats haven't identified a crime that President Trump has committed:

As they rush to impeach President Trump, Democrats have failed to recruit a single House Republican or to link the president's offense clearly to an actual crime.

At townhall meetings last week, Democrats had difficulty answering questions about what specific crimes President Trump had committed. If Democrats are smart, which they aren't, they'd drop these hearings. Democrats still haven't produced proof that President Trump did anything that fits into "Treason, Bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors." If this is any indication of the electorate's mood, Democrats are heading into a stiff headwind:
[Video no longer available]

But as the Ukrainian leader is preparing for talks with Russia, as he works to end the conflict, which included Russia's 2014 seizure of the Crimean peninsula, he argued that withholding aid for any reason is not something an ally should do. "If you're our strategic partner, then you can't go blocking anything for us," Zelensky said in an interview with TIME, France's Le Monde, Germany's Der Spiegel, and Poland's Gazeta Wyborcza. "I think that's just about fairness. It's not about a quid pro quo."

I don't blame President Zelenskiy for wanting to enter negotiations with Russia with the strongest possible position. I can't blame President Trump for not sending the lethal military aid until he was certain that President Zelenskiy wasn't corrupt. Both presidents did what they thought was right for their countries. If that ever becomes a crime, I don't want to be around for that day.

What happened between the 2 presidents doesn't come close to reaching the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. Democrats can't admit that, though, because they've wanted to impeach President Trump since virtually the day he was elected. They've wanted impeachment so badly that they can't admit that this isn't it.

Zelensky did appear to lend credence to Trump's concerns, admitting that his country has had problems with corruption, but said he is working toward eliminating them. "It's not that those things don't exist. They do. All branches of government were corrupted over many years, and we are working to clean that up," he said. "But that signal from them is very important."

Just like President Zelenskiy is shutting down corruption in the Ukraine, Ms. Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler should shut down the impeachment hearings. Democrats are going nowhere fast with impeachment.

Posted Monday, December 2, 2019 10:54 AM

No comments.


The Dems' invitations & pitchforks


The Democrats shouldn't be surprised that President Trump didn't accept their invitation to the Democrats' rigged impeachment hearing on Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee. The White House received notice of the hearing just over a week ago. That's beyond ridiculous:

In a Nov. 26 letter to Trump, Nadler said the president's counsel can make a request to question a panel of as yet unnamed witnesses who will discuss the constitutional basis for impeachment.

What intelligent person would trust a Democrat who's gotten caught with "plans for House Democrats to investigate and impeach Justice Brett Kavanaugh for alleged perjury and investigate and impeach President Donald Trump for alleged treasonous collusion with Russia"? Why would anyone think that Chairman Nadler was entering these hearings with an open mind? This tells me Chairman Nadler is hopelessly biased:

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., also ripped Trump for not fully cooperating with Congress. "If the President thinks the call was 'perfect' and there is nothing to hide then he would turn over the thousands of pages of documents requested by Congress, allow witnesses to testify instead of blocking testimony with baseless privilege claims, and provide any exculpatory information that refutes the overwhelming evidence of his abuse of power," he said in a statement.

I didn't hear Chairman Nadler insisting that President Obama turn over documents requested by the Oversight Committee on the subject of Operation Fast and Furious. That's because Nadler is a partisan hack. He only cares about doing as much damage to President Trump as possible.

Another sign that Chairman Nadler and the Democrats aren't operating in good faith is because Democrats set the date for this sham hearing on the same day as the NATO leaders summit in London. The date for that summit was set 9 months ago. Chairman Nadler couldn't have picked a different day? There's no question that he's operating in bad faith. This letter outlines the bad faith in greater detail:


The Democrats' invitation to President Trump's attorneys look more like pitchforks than invitations. Arranging the hearing without telling the minority who the witnesses will be is a terrible precedent. Setting the hearing without telling the minority if they'll be able to call a single witness is a historic precedent that Democrats won't be able to live down when the history books are written.

The Democrats haven't been ready for primetime. Chairmen Nadler and Schiff have presided over clown shows. These Democrats haven't played fair or consistently told the truth. That's why Nadler and Schiff will be historic. It just won't be in a positive way.

Posted Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:11 AM

No comments.


Dems ignore the people's business


Since regaining control of the House, Democrats have ignored the people's highest priorities while investigating and, within a month, impeaching President Trump. Farmers and unions badly want USMCA ratified. Pelosi's Democrats keep insisting that they're "working their way to yes", a quaint way of telling farmers and manufacturers to shut up while Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff and a handful of radicals impeach the president.

On Nov. 3, 2020, the People will render a verdict on what's important to them. That's when voters across the nation will return the gavels to people who listen, aka Republicans. The Democrats don't want to represent the people . They'd prefer telling the people what they should do.

Think of the ACA's Individual Mandate, which says 'buy our worthless and/or too expensive product or pay a fine. Rather than producing an appealing product that people actually want, Democrats told the people what they had to buy or else. When Pelosi's crew of Democrats shoved that legislation down our throats, the next election produced a landslide that resulted in a 63-seat gain in the House for the Republicans. Consider that the people's verdict on the ACA, aka Obamacare.

Have Democrats fixed our badly broken asylum laws? Have they funded the wall? Will Democrats close the loopholes in our immigration and deportation laws? Will Democrats do anything to fix the opioid epidemic? Will Rep. Schiff and Ms. Pelosi ignore the homeless crisis in their districts while chasing impeachment of a president without proof of high crimes or misdemeanors?

Q: How many problems have the Problem Solvers' Caucus solved? A: Fewer than 1. This was just a gimmick to sound moderate. The Democrats in this Caucus are really just Do-Nothing Democrats.

Tomorrow, Jerry Nadler will get a second shot at significance. It isn't likely that he'll rise to the occasion but he'll do a great job of cratering TV ratings. The Impeachment Committee hearings were mostly a snooze fest. The ratings started poorly (13,800,000 viewers), then went downhill after that, finishing with 11,400,000 viewers the final day.
[Video no longer available]
The Democrats have been in the majority in the House of Representatives for almost a year. They've passed a bunch of busy-work bills that are highly partisan but they haven't worked in a bipartisan fashion on the people's priorities. They've had a one-track mind thus far, which is why impeachment is the only thing that Democrats have serious attention to.

Posted Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:17 PM

No comments.


Schiff's national security double standard exposed


In releasing the Democrats' Impeachment Committee report, Adam Schiff highlighted the Democrats' national security double standard. These Democrats are attempting to impeach President Trump for delaying aid that President Obama totally refused to send. That doesn't make sense anywhere.

According to the Democrats' report, President Trump abused his office by withholding lethal military aid that the Ukrainians asked for but never received from the Obama administration. The hot war in Ukraine and Crimea was in 2014. Since then, there have been periodic flare-ups but nothing like the 2014 hot war. When the hot war was fought, President Obama sent blankets and MREs to Ukraine. After President Trump found out that President Zelenskiy wasn't corrupt like President Poroshenko, President Trump sent lots and lots of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Later, Ukraine bought more Javelin anti-tank missiles.

The Democrats' logic is that it isn't impeachable to ignore allies entirely but it is impeachment-worthy to help an ally, just not at the speed that Democrats prefer. Adam Schiff, not President Trump, is the Democrats' worst nightmare. Then there's this:

"President Trump does not appear to believe there is any such limitation on his power to use White House meetings, military aid or other official acts to procure foreign help in his re-election."

It's frightening to watch a chairman of a major committee act this stupid. Yesterday, for what seems like the umpteenth time, President Zelenskiy said that President Trump never tied lethal military aid to any investigations :

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky insisted that he never discussed a quid pro quo with President Trump tying U.S. military aid to a request for political favors in a newly published interview. Nevertheless, he hit the Trump administration for the delay in that aid and for critical statements about his country.

Schiff is so determined to impeach President Trump that he's willing to ignore firsthand testimony that's exculpatory. Couple that information with the old story that Chairman Schiff once said that he'd seen "evidence that was stronger than circumstantial":
[Video no longer available]
In that interview, Schiff said "Well, look, I don't think it was intentional on the Director's part but all I can tell you is, reviewing the evidence that I have, I don't think that you can conclude that at all. Far from it." Chuck Todd then interrupted, saying "All you have is a circumstantial case." Schiff then responded, saying "Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that and, though I can't go into the particulars, there is more than circumstantial evidence..." It's noteworthy that Robert Mueller's hyperpartisan lawyers didn't find that evidence.

Q: At what point does the American public just tune out Schiff's partisanship and the Democrats? They've all heard President Zelenskiy's exculpatory statement. There isn't a single Democrat supposedly that's seen this "stronger than circumstantial evidence" that then-Candidate Trump conspired with Putin's Russia. Each of the supposed fact witnesses from Schiff's impeachment hearings admitted during cross-examination that they didn't hear President Trump tie lethal military aid to investigating the Bidens.

The simple fact is that we're significantly more secure today than we were 3+ years ago. During the previous administration, aid to Ukraine consisted of MREs and blankets. During the Trump administration, aid to Ukraine consists of Javelin anti-tank missiles. During the previous administration, the president told Putin to stop hacking into our election systems after-the-fact. During this administration, DHS is proactively working with other departments and agencies to protect our election systems :

Election security is a top priority for the United States Government. Building on our successful, whole-of-government approach to securing the 2018 elections, we have increased the level of support to state and local election officials in their efforts to protect elections. The federal government is prioritizing the sharing of threat intelligence and providing support and services that improve the security of election infrastructure across the nation.

In an unprecedented level of coordination, the U.S. government is working with all 50 states and U.S. territories, local officials, and private sector partners to identify threats, broadly share information, and protect the democratic process. We remain firm in our commitment to quickly share timely and actionable information, provide support and services, and to defend against any threats to our democracy.

Saying that President Trump has risked our national security, as they said in the Democrats' impeachment report, is foolish. The proof that we're beefing up our systems is as plentiful as proof of presidential criminal activity is nonexistent.

Posted Tuesday, December 3, 2019 5:30 PM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 03-Dec-19 05:59 PM
This impeachment farce is not about making sense, it's about either getting rid of Trump through the process or making him unelectable in 2020. Too bad for progressives that neither is going to happen unless they deliver a real bombshell.

Comment 2 by Gretchen Leisen at 03-Dec-19 09:49 PM
I have reached the point that I would like to just ignore the entire Democrat party for the next 11 months. They have a one-track mindset and will not stop. Like a deranged dog with a bone, they persist in their idiocy. Temper tantrums are not a sign of good leadership and are unattractive to voters.


The unserious Schiff Report


Democrats finally proved that they have a sense of humor when they released the Schiff Report . The report contains enough malarkey to qualify for a Biden bus tour through Iowa. One funny line from the Schiff Report said "President Trump's scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign,' the Democrats' report said."

Do Democrats seriously think that Joe Biden has a snowball's prayer in H-E-Double Toothpicks of defeating a president with a fantastic economy? It's difficult picturing Democrats getting enthusiastic about Joe Biden at the top of next fall's ticket. If Democrats publicly take Biden's candidacy seriously, President Trump doesn't. President Trump doesn't picture any Democrat presidential candidates seriously. This was written later in the report:

The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation's upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

Just how did President Trump endanger "U.S. national security"? Second, if placing their "own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States" was an impeachable offense, half of U.S. presidents would've gotten impeached. The more you read from the Schiff Report, the more people should question its seriousness.

Then the Schiff Report sunk to this low:


A paragraph very early in the Schiff Report contains this information:

During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance. President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to "do us a favor though" and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory. In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting.

Here's what the transcript says about investigating the Bidens:

I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First off, I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor .general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and wi11 work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Yovanovitch.

First, it's important to notice that the "I have a favor" paragraph is entirely different than the "Investigate the Biden" paragraph. In fact, they're on separate pages. Where in the "I have a favor" paragraph does it mention military assistance? Further, the "I have a favor" paragraph doesn't mention military assistance. Neither does the "Investigate the Bidens" paragraph.

Apparently, Mr. Schiff thinks that he can just make things up and people will just take his word on it. Mr. Schiff hasn't figured out that the American people stopped giving Mr. Schiff the benefit of the doubt years ago. Further, since House Impeachment Committee Democrats voted on a 13-9 straight party line vote to approve the Schiff Report, they're complicit in Mr. Schiff's lies.

In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry. Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President's actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States.

Actually, President Trump didn't claim executive privilege as often as Bill Clinton claimed it in 1998-99. It's worth noting that Congress isn't the final arbiter on claims of privilege. The Constitution gives the Judicial Branch the responsibility of settling disputes between the political branches, aka the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. Since Congress didn't ask the judiciary to settle these disputes over privilege, it's impossible to take the Schiff Report (or the Democrats who voted to approve it) seriously.

The Schiff Report isn't a serious report. Its "Findings of Facts" section is especially farcical. That'll require a separate post, which I'll write Wednesday.

Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2019 12:42 AM

No comments.


Chairman Schiff's findings of 'facts'


With any report, one of the most important parts of the report are the finding of facts. The Schiff Report's Findings of Facts section is important. It just isn't important in a positive way. Let's jump right in and test the veracity of the Schiff Report's Finding of Facts section.

First Finding of Fact:

Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States - acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government - solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation's upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

This is speculation. It isn't a fact since it's disputed. What isn't disputed is that President Trump asked President Zelenskiy to look into the Bidens. What's disputed is President Trump's motivation. Absent some texts, emails, social media interactions or eyewitness testimony verifying this accusation, this remains speculation.

FOOTNOTE: Put this finding in the same category as the Russia collusion "stronger than circumstantial" evidence that nobody's ever seen.

In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump - directly and acting through his agents within and outside the U.S. government - sought to pressure and induce Ukraine's newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations that would benefit President Trump's personal political interests and reelection effort. To advance his personal political objectives, President Trump encouraged the President of Ukraine to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Again, without corroboration on motive, this is just a theory. Further, the topic was brought up once, then dropped. If that's Chairman Schiff's and the Democrats definition of "pressure and induce", then they're wimps.

As part of this scheme, President Trump, acting in his official capacity and using his position of public trust, personally and directly requested from the President of Ukraine that the government of Ukraine publicly announce investigations into (1) the President's political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden, and (2) a baseless theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine - rather than Russia - interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. These investigations were intended to harm a potential political opponent of President Trump and benefit the President's domestic political standing.

Chairman Schiff still hasn't considered the possibility that Burisma hired Hunter Biden for nefarious reasons. Burisma has a reputation for corruption. Just because Chairman Schiff and the Democrats who approved the Schiff Report don't care about high-ranking American politicians getting caught up in influence-peddling schemes doesn't mean such schemes shouldn't be investigated.

Further, anyone stupid enough to think that President Trump worried that Joe Biden might prevent President Trump's re-election is stupid. Give me a break. That's like thinking that Biden isn't creepy around women.

President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anti-corruption justification. The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.

First, this happens all the time. Why didn't Chairman Schiff mention that this happened with Pakistan, the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and from the nation of Lebanon? Certainly, these are strategically-located.
[Video no longer available]
Further, why didn't Chairman Schiff and the Democrats who approved the Schiff Report impeach President Trump for withholding aid from those countries? Finally, Undersecretary Hale testified that US aid to Ukraine was much more robust under President Trump's administration than during the Obama administration. In fact, there was a hot war in Ukraine during President Obama's administration. I think it's obvious why Chairman Schiff didn't advocate for impeaching President Obama.

To increase leverage over the President of Ukraine, President Trump, acting through his agents and subordinates, conditioned release of the vital military assistance he had suspended to Ukraine on the President of Ukraine's public announcement of the investigations that President Trump sought.

Chairman Schiff should be ashamed of the Schiff Report. The day before the Schiff Report was released, President Zelenskiy told Time Magazine that President Trump never conditioned military aid with anything. That's the second time President Zelenskiy has said that. Further, Ambassador Sondland testified during Chairman Schiff's hearings that the military wasn't tied to any conditions.

This presents a difficult question. Why did Chairman Schiff ignore Ambassador Sondland's testimony and President Zelenskiy's multiple statements that contradict the Schiff Report's 'finding of fact'? The Schiff Report, like the man it's named after, is a farce. It shouldn't be taken seriously.

Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2019 10:52 AM

No comments.


Constitution, Jonathan Turley, impeachment hearing stars


The biggest stars of the Democrats' Impeachment Committee's hearing were George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley and the Constitution itself. Here's why they starred today. First, Prof. Turley was a voice of unwavering principles. He consistently passed Professor Emeritus Dershowitz shoe-on-the-other-foot test.

Among the things that Prof. Turley highlighted was the speed with which Democrats are jamming this impeachment investigation down the people's throats. This is Prof. Turley's powerful opening statement:
[Video no longer available]
Here's part of the transcript of Prof. Turley's opening statement:

I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump's policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger . If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

Prof. Turley is right that there isn't a good time to impeach a US president. Prof. Turley also mentioned that impeachment shouldn't be attempted when there's "a paucity of evidence." This is something that Democrats have ignored. In the Schiff Report's Finding of Facts , most of the 'facts' were opinions or theories. This is an example:

Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States - acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government - solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation's upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

Chairman Schiff's theory is that President Trump suggested the investigation of the Biden family was to keep Joe Biden out of the presidential race. While that's certainly a possibility, that isn't a certainty. Without a communication between President Trump and President Zelenskiy that includes a quote from President Trump stating that Zelenskiy wouldn't get the military aid unless he investigated Burisma and Hunter Biden, Schiff's statement of 'fact' is just a plausible theory.

The other star from today's hearing was the Constitution itself. With so many people talking about the Constitution from opposing perspectives, people who watched today's hearings will be forced to read the Constitution for themselves, just like people read the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call.

Finally, let's thank Prof. Turley and Prof. Emeritus Dershowitz for consistently passing the shoe-on-the-other-foot test on the Constitution. These are principled men who deserve our gratitude.

Posted Wednesday, December 4, 2019 5:13 PM

No comments.

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

March 21-24, 2016

October 31, 2007